Before Lyell proposed that the geographic strata was the result of continuous change the Creationist's view of the stratigraphy was that it represented several global catastrophe's with Noah's being the last. I find it odd that nowadays the entire stratigraphy is explained as being the result of one global flood - despite the fact that it doesn't look that way, and the fossil progression disagrees with it.

Of course, there are similar objections to this argument - but, despite these other catastrophe's omission from Genesis, it seems to be a stronger position to argue from. Is it merely because of its biblical exclusion that Creationists have since abandoned this theory?

Hi. I'm new to the board, but somewhat interested in the origins of life. So, you are graced with my first reply...

Good questions. However, could you clearly state the abandoned theory (that of more than one catastrophe?). Also, in what way(s) exactly does the fossil progression disagree with the idea of a world-wide flood? Are there specific occurances that you are referring too?

Also, in what way(s) exactly does the fossil progression disagree with the idea of a world-wide flood?

The fossil record shows a change in lifeforms with depth (= time) in the geologic strata.

This "change in life through time" shows up in rocks all over the world. For example, elephants are always found above dinosaurs- never below. Pleiseiosaurs (marine reptiles) are found below whales -never above.

What would a "flood produced" fossil record look like?

It could mix everything together, so there is no systematic change in the fossils, but the fossil record doesn't look like this.

It could sort fossils by size, or their hydrodynamic properties, in which case we would expect to find extinct marine reptiles like ichthyosaurs (which looked very similar to dolphins) at the same level as dolphins. But we don't.

It could sort animals from the same ecological niche together, in which case we would expect to find things that live in swamps, like racoons and extinct primitive amphibians, together. But we don't.

It could sort animals by their ability to escape the flood waters, in which case we should find things that fly, like birds and flying reptiles, together in the highest levels. But we don't.

There is no way to interpret the fossil record in any way other than that it records a change in life through time.

The fossil record shows a change in lifeforms with depth (= time) in the geologic strata.

This "change in life through time" shows up in rocks all over the world.Ã‚Â For example, elephants are always found above dinosaurs- never below.Ã‚Â Pleiseiosaurs (marine reptiles) are found below whales -never above.

This is a common evolutionist illusion. Sounds good on the surface, but OC1 provides no evidence, just a just-so claim. Several points:

1) elephant fossils are extremely rare (even Mammoth fossils are rare though you hear a lot about them), dino fossils are also rare. You find a dino fossil, you get some bucks, sometimes major bucks! Just a fairly intact dino bone can fetch you $400 or more. Now go and try to buy just a Mammoth tooth. It'll cost you $200 or more. So to find dinos together or near, or above or below elephants is a ridiculously bogus test.

2) If an elephant were found below a dino, the evolutionists would explain it away and blame it on an over-thrust or something similar, like a Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ã¢â‚¬Ëœstratigraphic leakÃ¢â‚¬Â. They have an excuse for every problem. A theory rigged to explain everything thrown at it is a classic sign of a bad theory. It's not falsifiable, so we get bogus "tests" like OC1 proposed above.

The same for the other animals OC1 mentioned applies. Ichthyosaurs and dolphins are also extreemely rare fossil finds.

This is a common evolutionist illusion. Sounds good on the surface, but OC1 provides no evidence, just a just-so claim. Several points:

But Fred it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have to be the specific specimens OC1 provided, it can be any life form in an out of position layer now that reduces the rarity problem straight away, in addition you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have to limit yourself to relatively uncommon land dwelling animals. The fossil evidence is overwhelming 100% in favour of

The fossil record shows a change in lifeforms with depth (= time) in the geologic strata

.

Overthrust Ã¢â‚¬â€œ there is nothing unscientific about finding geological faults that shift the strata about. One only has to follow the strata and you often see the fault straighten out like a wrinkled up carpet.

In addition one should also be able to predict that a fossil could be sheared in two at the fault and find half in each as below.

But Fred it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have to be the specific specimens OC1 provided, it can be any life form in an out of position layer now that reduces the rarity problem straight away, in addition you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have to limit yourself to relatively uncommon land dwelling animals.

Then donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t limit yourself, give me examples of Ã¢â‚¬Å“commonÃ¢â‚¬Â land dwelling animals! You and I know you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. You are essentially claiming the sum of rarity is itself not a rarity, which is simply not true in this case. All the vertebrate fossils combined is still a miniscule fraction of the fossil record. They are dwarfed by the invertebrate fossils, that happen to be expected to be found together (conveniently for evolution), and thus why you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t offer an even remotely compelling falsification test. When a vertebrate fossil was found in the Cambrian, it was accommodated and the Cambrian timeline was shrunk to meet it[1], in a sense becoming a circular justification. But to the credit of the Chinese paleontologists who discovered it, they in so many words admitted it falsified Neo-Darwinism. So like I said, evolution is either not falsifiable, or is falsified, take your pick!

LetÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s say I have a room full of pennies. You then try to bet me I wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be able to find a 1909 SVDB. I tell you I wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t take the bet, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a dumb bet that I would be very likely to lose, since the odds of this rare coin being in this room full of pennies is extremely small. You then reply Ã¢â‚¬Å“OK, instead finding a 1909 SVDB, IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll also allow you to find a 1955 double-die or 1926P to win the betÃ¢â‚¬Â. I reply Ã¢â‚¬Å“Do you really think you can trick me into such a silly bet? The odds of me finding any of these rare coins is still next to nil!Ã¢â‚¬Â This is similar to the evolutionistÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fossil Ã¢â‚¬Å“testÃ¢â‚¬Â recently offered here by OC1 and chance. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s a bogus test, the odds are astronomically low that we would ever find a fossilized vertebrate in the same strata with a fossilized invertebrate.

But when we do find out-of-place fossils, like amber in pre-cambrian rock in the Grand Canyon, they are ignored or excuses are made (in this case Ã¢â‚¬Å“contaminationÃ¢â‚¬Â is the ready answer of the evolutionist).

Selected quotes from the Link to AiG Jonathan Sarfati (The fossil record supports evolution).

Scientific American claims that the placement of fossils in the geologic record was predicted by evolution and is strong evidence for it. But it canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even keep the Ã¢â‚¬ËœfactsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ straight. <snip> Evolutionists assign the date of 65 Ma to the KÃ¢â‚¬â€œT (Cretaceous-Tertiary boundary), not to the Jurassic period. Instead, the Jurassic is dated after 208Ã¢â‚¬â€œ144 Ma. After I first posted a rebuttal on the AiG website, Scientific American corrected their error on the web version of the article.

A corrected blooper is not much to crow about IMO, indeed it is a reflection of the honesty of Scientific American and science in general.

Actually, even if they found human fossils deeply buried in the earth that contradicted their assumptions about the geologic column and the fossil record, evolutionists could easily accommodate such Ã¢â‚¬Ëœout of place fossils,Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ as they have with living specimens of the Ã¢â‚¬ËœancientÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ Coelacanth fish and Ã¢â‚¬Ëœdinosaur eraÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ Wollemi pine. These recent finds are just as sensationalÃ¢â‚¬â€from an evolutionary paleontologistÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s perspectiveÃ¢â‚¬â€as finding a living dinosaur.

This is a total misrepresentation of evolution, there is no correlation between an out of place fossil (younger fossil in an older layer) to a Ã¢â‚¬Ëœliving fossilÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (older fossil in a younger layer). The first will refute evolution the second is evidence that an ancient life form did not go extinct as first though and has survived to a later period than first thought.

Since the materialistic paradigm (interpretive framework) is all important, evolutionists would be able to explain an Ã¢â‚¬ËœoldÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ human fossil by Ã¢â‚¬ËœreworkingÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (displacing from the initial burial depth), or maybe even reassigning such bones to another creature, since after all Ã¢â‚¬Ëœwe knowÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ that humans canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be that deep in the fossil record!

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see how one could explain away such a find (e.g. if you found a human skull inside the rib cage of a Tyrannosaurus), unless Jonathan Sarfati is claiming that scientist are doctoring the evidence.

A good example of reworking is the famous fossil footprints at Laetoli, Africa, of an upright walking bipedÃ¢â‚¬â€the University of ChicagoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Dr Russell Tuttle has shown that these are the same sorts of prints as made by habitually barefoot humans. But since they are dated at millions of years prior to when evolutionists believe modern humans arrived, they are regarded as australopithecine prints, by definition, even though australopithecine foot bones are substantially different from human ones. And then in an amazing twist, the same prints are held up as evidence that australopithecines walked upright like humansÃ¢â‚¬â€regardless of the fact that other aspects of their anatomy indicate otherwise.

I need to find a reference for this.

In spite of evolutionistsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ assumptions to the contrary, the fossil order can be explained in a creationist framework, which actually avoids some of the contradictions of the evolutionary view.3 The Ã¢â‚¬Ëœfountains of the great deepÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ (Gen. 7:11) would logically have buried small seafloor creatures first. Water plants would generally be buried before coastal and mountain plants. Land creatures would be buried last, especially the mammals and birds that could escape to higher ground. The more intelligent creatures would find a way to escape until the very end, leaving their bodies nearer the surface, where post-Flood erosion would destroy most evidence of their existence. Humans would have been most resilient of all, clinging to debris and rafts, before they died of exposure; their floating bodies would have made easy meals for scavenging fish, so would not have fossilized as readily. Most mammal and human fossils are post-Flood.

Lets see what the fossil record should show in this case.

Pre flood - all animals and plants from the fossil record would be living and dying (presumably fossilising as per today) so in the pre flood layers (whatever those are) one should be able to find a representational selection of all current life, that would be man, bird, dinosaur, trilobite, whale, ichthyosaur, etc etc. these fossils should be arranged in the localities where they live. We find no such evidence of this.

Flood massive amounts of debris containing the entire population of all land life forms is mixed and deposited. Without exception heavy things will sink before suspended partials so we should see a rocky layer followed by a global fine mud (local conditions will make a small difference and be recognisable). We find no such evidence of this.

Animal and plant life found in the flood layer should show no evidence of evolution, modern and ancient marine creatures should be evident together e.g. trilobite, modern crabs, and fish.

Land animals should be sorted by how fast they rot and sink, therefore one should find mammoth, lion, and tyrannosaurus together, and bird, pterosaur, frog etc in the upper layers. However given the chaotic nature of such a flood I even dispute this type of layering and suggest that one should find a mix of all life in all layers and that large scale sorting is impossible.

Then donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t limit yourself, give me examples of Ã¢â‚¬Å“commonÃ¢â‚¬Â land dwelling animals! You and I know you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. You are essentially claiming the sum of rarity is itself not a rarity, which is simply not true in this case. All the vertebrate fossils combined is still a miniscule fraction of the fossil record. They are dwarfed by the invertebrate fossils, that happen to be expected to be found together (conveniently for evolution), and thus why you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t offer an even remotely compelling falsification test. When a vertebrate fossil was found in the Cambrian, it was accommodated and the Cambrian timeline was shrunk to meet it[1], in a sense becoming a circular justification. But to the credit of the Chinese paleontologists who discovered it, they in so many words admitted it falsified Neo-Darwinism. So like I said, evolution is either not falsifiable, or is falsified, take your pick!

But I am not limiting myself, I have left the Ã¢â‚¬Å“what fossilÃ¢â‚¬Â open ended to include all and every fossil from every layer from the Holocene down to the Archaeozoic to find an out of place fossil, that includes all marine invertebrates also! As an example that would include finding things like Trilobites, insects and Ammonites in the Archaeozoic or Proterozoic. By all means lets not limit Ã¢â‚¬Ëœout of placeÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ to the vertebrates.

Finding a fossil that stretches the boundary of itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s time on earth in the positive or negative direction will not challenge the theory of evolution (Re the link to the Chinese fossils):E.g. If I make the statement Ã¢â‚¬Å“the tyrannosaurus is only found in the CretaceousÃ¢â‚¬Â, and what if they find one in the Jurassic, is evolution crushed because someone stated that Ã¢â‚¬Å“tyrannosaurus is only found in the CretaceousÃ¢â‚¬Â? No, the time line is revised for the tyrannosaurus linage, finding a tyrannosaurus in the Devonian (and you will never find one) however is a whole different kettle of fish.

But when we do find out-of-place fossils, like amber in pre-cambrian rock in the Grand Canyon, they are ignored or excuses are made (in this case Ã¢â‚¬Å“contaminationÃ¢â‚¬Â is the ready answer of the evolutionist).

I am not familiar with the grand canyon example you put forward, can you elaborate please.

1) elephant fossils are extremely rare (even Mammoth fossils are rare though you hear a lot about them), dino fossils are also rare. You find a dino fossil, you get some bucks, sometimes major bucks! Just a fairly intact dino bone can fetch you $400 or more. Now go and try to buy just a Mammoth tooth. It'll cost you $200 or more. So to find dinos together or near, or above or below elephants is a ridiculously bogus test.

The same for the other animals OC1 mentioned applies. Ichthyosaurs and dolphins are also extreemely rare fossil finds.

Fred- the cases I mentioned were merely examples of particular animals that are not found together, and thus show a "change in life on earth through time". These examples were not intended to be an all-inclusive list.

As to your claim that these fossils are rare, well they are, relatively speaking.

That does not even take into account the numerous fossils of extinct marine and flying reptile that have also been found.

As for mammoths, there are much less rare than dinososaurs. In fact, over 30 have been found frozen in siberia with partially preserved flesh: http://www.talkorigi...CC/CC361_2.html. Many, many more fossil mamoths have been discovered, in europe and north america.

And there is a whole bunch of other mammals (now extinct) that lived at the same time as the mammoth- sabre tooth cats, mastodons, giant ground sloths, glypodonts, the irish elk, the giant cave bear, the dire wolf, the american horse, and many, many others.

So the extinct mammals and dinosaurs lived in California, but no dinosaurs have been found in the tar pits, and the mammals are not found in the same sediments the dinosaurs are found in.

Dnosaurs have even been found in my home state of New Jersey (like Hadrosaurous Foulki- the NJ state dinosaur! First dinosaur found in the US, and named after Haddonfield, NJ), as have mastodons. So dino's and mastodons both lived in NJ, but their fossils are not found in sediments of the same age.

Despite the relative rarity of verterbrate fossils, different dino's are found together in the same age sediments, and different extinct mammals are found together in the same age sediment. Yet with all the dino and extinct mammal fossils found, all over the world, in areas where they are both known to have lived, why are the dino's ALWAYS found in the older rocks, and the mammals ALWAYs found in the younger rocks???

Note- I know that there are some early mammals that lived alonside the dinosaurs- but those species are not the ones I am referring to.

I have also confined my discussion to dino's and mammals. The same arguments can be made with amphibians, therapsid reptiles, birds, etc, as well as numerous inverterbrates.

2) If an elephant were found below a dino, the evolutionists would explain it away and blame it on an over-thrust or something similar, like a Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ã¢â‚¬Ëœstratigraphic leakÃ¢â‚¬Â. They have an excuse for every problem. A theory rigged to explain everything thrown at it is a classic sign of a bad theory. It's not falsifiable, so we get bogus "tests" like OC1 proposed above.

Overthrusts are well-documented geological features, as are overturned beds (from folding). They can be identified through geologic mapping. This is not "explaining away" the evidence; it is a recognition that geologic forces can flip beds over. The rocks and fossils have to be interpreted in that context.

By the way, I hear this "stratigraphic leak" business mentioned quite a bit. Can you provide some examples of "evolutionists" using this argument?

It can be a correct assessment, but I would like to know the details of the specific instances you are aluding to.

I think you missed the point of my post; I was only illustrating how the fossil sequence could not be the result of "the flood". Nowhere in my original post did I state that evolution was the cause of the changes seen. IMO, evolution is the best explanation for the observed changes, but the "change in life through time" in the rocks was first observed by the early geologists- people like, lyell, Hutton, Smith, and Cuvier- 50+ years before "Darwin published "Origin of Species".

So the fossil sequence is not a "construct" of an evolutionary worldview; it is real.

And WRT to original points about the fossil record showing a change in life through time, you also recognize this is the case (although you may not know it).

You may not know that there are many life forms from the Pre-Cambrian, namely the Ediacara Biota LINK.

The Ediacara stuff is weird- nobody knows how (or if) those Ediacara life forms relate to modern life, or to Cambrain life forms.

Since you recognize the sudden appearance of new life forms in the Cambrian explosion as real, and since there are different life forms in the Pre-Cambrian, you must also acknowledge that, at least in this case, the fossils do show a "change in life through time."

Sorry about the length of this post, and all the links, but Fred wanted evidence!

All the vertebrate fossils combined is still a miniscule fraction of the fossil record. They are dwarfed by the invertebrate fossils, that happen to be expected to be found together (conveniently for evolution), and thus why you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t offer an even remotely compelling falsification test.

Inverterbrate fossils show the same "change through time" that vertebrate fossils show. Many examples here: http://www.museum.vi.../ammonoids.html (lots of other good info at this link, too!)

More selected quotes from the Link to AiG Jonathan Sarfati (The fossil record supports evolution).

Multitudes of transitional fossils exist? Evolutionists recognize a serious threat to their whole argumentÃ¢â‚¬â€evolution predicts innumerable transitional forms, yet all they have are a handful of debatable ones.

Yes and No, yes there should be transitional forms in the fossil record, but how do you tell what is transitional? because by definition we are all transitional. E.g. is the Protoceratops transitional towards the Triceratops? However some fossils are better representative than others.

One of the most famous fossils of all time is Archaeopteryx, which combines feathers and skeletal structures peculiar to birds with features of dinosaurs.

So why exactly can you not consider Archaeopteryx as a transitional, it contains feature or reptile and bird, and just because Archaeopteryx may not be the direct descendant of modern birds this does not exclude it from being classified as a transitional. There is another possibility in that Archaeopteryx is the bird direct descendant but the specimens currently found survived in their current form while other branches of Archaeopteryx continued to evolve. So Jonathan Sarfati feels justified in claiming: If Archaeopteryx is not the bird ancestor Ã¢â‚¬â€œ thus Archaeopteryx is not a transitional. Very false logic indeed.

Horse evolution Scientific American boldly claims:

A sequence of fossils spans the evolution of modern horses from the tiny Eohippus. [SA 83]

Like the Archaeopteryx, however, this doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t hold up. Even informed evolutionists regard horse evolution as a bush rather than a sequence.

That would be the modern way of thinking about evolution, the Ã¢â‚¬Ëœrungs of a ladderÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ metaphor were thrown out long ago. So no points for Jonathan Sarfati for pointing that out.

Mollusks Scientific American makes another false claim:

Fossil seashells trace the evolution of various mollusks through millions of years. [SA 83]

Again, what does this mean? One must wonder if the author of the article believes the old Ostrea/Gryphaea story

Jonathan Sarfati is second guessing what the Scientific American thinks they mean and talks about shell coils. As we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know what Scientific American was referring too the argument is moot.

Ok, how about this:Is the flying fish a current transitional, i.e. 10% wing 90% fin?Is the Tree Kangaroo transitional towards a permanent life in the trees, say 40% tree, 60% ground?Is the Walrus, Seal, and Penguin transitional to a permanent life in the sea? 90% sea, 10% land?If not why not.

even more selected quotes from the Link to AiG Jonathan Sarfati (The fossil record supports evolution).

Whale evolution?

New research since the PBS series was produced has blown away this reconstruction. This demonstrates an oft-repeated phenomenon in evolutionary paleontology. Many of the alleged transitional forms are based on fragmentary remains, which are therefore open to several interpretations, based on oneÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s axioms. Evolutionary bias means that such remains are often likely to be interpreted as transitional,

Yep fair enough, I agree with Jonathan Sarfati on this one, palaeontology can make some mistakes, the Cope and Marsh incident remains an infamous example and some of the original Owen reconstructions are laughable. But, it all comes out in the wash eventually. What would really concern me however would be some sort of cover-up. Provided itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s all out in the open I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see any problem with making mistakes, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s to be expected.

The bulk of Jonathan Sarfati comments about whale evolution tend to focus on the mistakes, and differing opinions so IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll skip that bit.

Part3 of selected quotes from the Link to AiG Jonathan Sarfati (The fossil record supports evolution).

Locomotion PBS 2 also claims support for a transition from the way the mammal-to-whale fossil links moved. Marine mammals move through the water with vertical undulating movements of the spine, just as many fast-running mammals do on land. Fish move with sideways undulations instead. But this could be another common design feature of mammals, like milk or hair. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s also doubtful whether this is a unique prediction of evolution; if whales used side-to-side movements, evolutionists could presumably have Ã¢â‚¬ËœpredictedÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ this because the tails of land animals also swish sideways.

Jonathan SarfatiÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s knowledge of basic anatomy is severely under strain, the spine is above the hip, the tail is below the hip. And again note that he is not above putting words into the mouths of evolutionists to make a moot point.

Tetrapod evolution? Shubin also highlighted the common limb pattern between tetrapods, illustrated by fish and humans having the sequence one bone/two bones/small bones/rods (digits). But this fails to explain the totally different developmental sequence, as previously explained (chapter 6).

Jonathan Sarfati makes a lot of statements about differing opinions on the tetrapod development. But, so what! inferring that because we donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know for certain the full history of the tetrapod, we cant interpret the evidence we do have. This is a nonsensical position to take, science must (usually) has some theory, if new knowledge comes forth itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s revised, that is how science works.

Cambrian explosion The Cambrian explosion was Ã¢â‚¬Ëœone of the greatest breakthroughs in the history of life.Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ Essentially all the different animal phyla (major groups) appeared abruptly, without any known transitional forms preceding them.

The Burgess Shale, with lots of bizarre creatures, e.g., one with five eyes, another worm-like creature with large spines, and still another with prongs around its mouth. But none of this showed what the Cambrian animals could have evolved from. Supposedly the evidence shows that evolution tinkered with a few basic body plans, but provides no evidence for their origins.

This again is a moot argument, based on the non-discovery of an intermediate, (which no doubt, if found, would also be denied as an intermediate as itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fully formed). Jonathan Sarfati makes this point numerous times so IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll snip the repetitions.

Extinction! The whole emphasis on extinction, such as PBS 3 on Ã¢â‚¬ËœExtinction!Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ is rather strange. It hardly tells us anything to prove evolution per se.

Rather, it says a lot about species dying out, which is hardly news to anyone, but it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t itself shed any light on how species arose in the first place. The PBS program makes plenty of assertions about new species diversifying to take the place of the old ones, but it offers no evidence of any mechanism by which this could occur.

Seems that it is in accord with the title then! If one wanted to make a program about evolution one might title it Ã¢â‚¬ËœevolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ and not extinction.

Have most species become extinct? PBS 3 repeated the common claim that 95Ã¢â‚¬â€œ99 percent of species have become extinct. However, the known record of extinct and extant species does not support this. The number of fossil species actually found is estimated to be about 250,000, while there are about three million living Ã¢â‚¬Ëœspecies,Ã¢â‚¬â„¢ or even more, depending on whoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s telling the story. But if this >95% claim were correct, we would expect many more fossil species than living ones.

I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know how that estimate is calculated but IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll hazard a guess: lets say you have only 10 fossil species for a period covering a million years prior to an extinction event, and 8 of these are very different types of predator. One could calculate a theoretical food chain required to support these predators. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll reserve my opinion unless some explanation is presented.

There was non that I could find, he basically cherry picked the differing opinions on the exact lineage and how it has been revise recently, as if that were some sort of proof that palaeontologists donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know what they are talking about. IMO itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s the differing opinions that make the whole system work, why Sarfati thinks this is a weakness is beyond me.

Finding a fossil that stretches the boundary of itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s time on earth in the positive or negative direction will not challenge the theory of evolution (Re the link to the Chinese fossils):

Of course not, because evolution is set up to be non-falsifiable. One could easily argue the Haikouella shrinks the Cambrian to 0 years, but evolution wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t allow itself to be falsified. You called SarfatiÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s claim on this very matter Ã¢â‚¬Å“a total misrepresentationÃ¢â‚¬Â but you totally missed his point, which is the point I just made above. In other words, Haikouella *is* out of place, but evolution accommodates it by not allowing the boundary to stretch to the point that would meet your criteria of a Ã¢â‚¬Å“younger fossil in older layerÃ¢â‚¬Â.

I am not familiar with the grand canyon example you put forward, can you elaborate please.

Animal and plant life found in the flood layer should show no evidence of evolution, modern and ancient marine creatures should be evident together e.g. trilobite, modern crabs...

Well folks, evolution has just been falsified! We find trilobites buried with crabs! Are you now prepared to reject evolution, or are you going to stretch the boundary to accommodate this fact, and prove my point that evolutionists just donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t allow their theory to be threatened (falsified)?

You may not know that there are many life forms from the Pre-Cambrian, namely the Ediacara Biota LINK.

Your back-to-back claims above are somewhat humorous. May not know? Well, I did know about them because I wrote about them in my article! You know, that certain article you pretended to read when you referred to it just one sentence earlier? In the section "Answering the standard evolutionist objections" I deal with the Ediacara fauna. What's even funnier, my reference is the same link you provided! Please read the article next time if you are going to comment on it.

Of course not, because evolution is set up to be non-falsifiable. One could easily argue the Haikouella shrinks the Cambrian to 0 years, but evolution wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t allow itself to be falsified. You called SarfatiÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s claim on this very matter Ã¢â‚¬Å“a total misrepresentationÃ¢â‚¬Â but you totally missed his point, which is the point I just made above. In other words, Haikouella *is* out of place, but evolution accommodates it by not allowing the boundary to stretch to the point that would meet your criteria of a Ã¢â‚¬Å“younger fossil in older layerÃ¢â‚¬Â.<snip>

To make this claim you are requiring palaeontologist to state the existents of a life form upon the earth in advance of any subsequent finds. This cannot be done, because all the palaeontologist knows about the date is a snapshot in time of that one fossil. The existence of the species is provisional depending on future finds. You feel like itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s stacking the odds in our favour, but realistically, how could it be any other way?

Out of place has to mean really out of place, in the case of vertibrates, we are only pushing the evolution of a true vertebrate a few million years, thatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s no real problem. In fact if vertibrates had been discovered 50 years ago this whole argument would be moot!

For a fossil to be really out of place there is tremendous scope within the strata to find an example, e.g. practaly every fossil ever discovered would be out of place if discovered in Proterozoic (pre-Cambrian) (1500 to 545 MYA) strata! In addition we need not limit ourselves to fossils, we can include human artefacts also (so finding a ceramic in anthing lower than the Miocene would count I think.

Millions of years ago Mya, (Time period), What happened10,000ya Holocene epoch Modern civilisation1.8 Mya Quaternary Pleistocene epoch Ice age, development of modern humans5 (Pliocene epoch) First upright ape23 (Miocene epoch) First ape36 (Oligocene epoch) Grasslands spread, many grazing animals57 (Eocene epoch) First horse, first whales65 (Palaeocene epoch) Giant land birds65 (Tertiary) Rise of the mammals Dinosaurs go extinct as 65mya136 (Cretaceous) First flowering plants. 190 (Jurassic) Dinosaurs dominate, first birds.225 (Triassic) First dinosaurs, first mammals, Mammal like reptiles extinct280 (Permian) Mammal like reptiles dominate. Major extinction of marine creatures345 (Carboniferous) Great forests, amphibians, first reptiles395 (Devonian) First bony fish, vertebrates on land430 (Silurian) First fish with jaws, first land animals (invertebrates)500 (Ordovician) First jawless fish, first land based plants570 (Cambrian) First molluscs and chordates600 (Pre-Cambrian) Oldest fossil animal and plants3500 (Pre-Cambrian) Oldest known single cell organisms4500 (Pre-Cambrian) Formation of Earth

Well folks, evolution has just been falsified! We find trilobites buried with crabs! Are you now prepared to reject evolution

well done you picked the trick question, just seeing if you were paying attention